Mullite replaces platinum, a precious metal that is expensive to mine and limited in supply

University of Texas at Dallas scientists found that a material called mullite, which is from a family of oxides, could replace platinum on diesel exhaust from automotives.

Platinum has been the go-to material for diesel vehicles because diesel exhaust emits more nitric oxide and nitrogen dioxode than gasoline vehicles (however, diesel engines are generally more efficient). To reduce the amount of these pollutants from diesel exhaust, platinum is commonly used.

The problem is that platinum is a precious metal, mainly because it is limited and very expensive to mine. For 10 tons of platinum ore mined, only 1 ounce is usually usable.

Enter Dr. Kyeongjae Cho, study leader and professor of materials science and engineering and physics at UT Dallas. He and a team of researchers set out to find the alternative, and discovered that mullite was exactly what the doctor ordered.

After synthesizing mullite and using computer models to see how it consumes nitric oxide/nitrogen dioxode, it was discovered that an oxygen-based composition of mullite is not only cheaper to produce than platinum, but it also reduces diesel exhaust pollution 45 percent more than platinum.

"Our goal to move completely away from precious metals and replace them with oxides that can be seen commonly in the environment has been achieved," said Cho. "We've found new possibilities to create renewable, clean energy technology by designing new functional materials without being limited by the supply of precious metals."

This new mullite discovery is already being commercialized as Noxicat.

You're doing a great job of turning the Republic into a plutocracy, but I'm not sure the ACA decision is the signal event on that train ride (which has been building up steam for quite some time).

Another threat to the Republic could be internal fracture, and when supreme court decisions and policy debates become inflicted with words like "treason", I wonder if the language you use is perhaps a greater signifier of a threat to the Republic than the ACA decision could ever be...

quote: I wonder if the language you use is perhaps a greater signifier of a threat to the Republic than the ACA decision could ever be...

This is America, sir. It's not a "threat" to exercise your First Amendment rights. That's why it's the First one, not the second or third or fifth.

Honestly how dare you. If my language makes you uncomfortable, fine. But to say it's a "bigger" threat than ACA is frankly insanity.

quote: but I'm not sure the ACA decision is the signal event on that train ride (which has been building up steam for quite some time).

This is definitely a tide-turner. It's true that we have been sliding down this path for some time, which you've pointed out. Which makes it all the more baffling why you seem to have an issue with someone being alarmed at this.

The ACA decision is so huge because THIS is what they've been wanting. Direct unilateral control of the American population at the Federal level. Something the Constitution desperately works to prevent. They've nibbled at it with gross Commerce Clause abuse, but usually when they reach this far, the Supreme Court has been there to slap them back a bit.

However what this decision does is grant Congress and the Presidency, for the foreseeable future, unlimited power to control it's citizens in almost any way possible. All they have to do is call it a "tax", and almost anything can be mandated. This tramples States Rights, and the Constitutions promise of their Sovereignty. If the ACA is "legal", than almost ANYTHING designed similarly is now "legal" too.

Simply put, this gives the Government unlimited mandate power over the citizens of this country. I think you understand this and that the Constitution was against that, your problem is you don't see this as a bad thing.

wow you're really good at feigning outrage. Of course I can't take seriously your claim to be offended since you so easily toss out things like the following:

"You're just too stupid to see it"

"..is frankly insanity"

Dial back the outrage machine a tad and remember my point wasn't that YOUR PARTICULAR words were a "bigger threat" than the ACA, but that generally speaking, a fractured political environment where policy debates become grounds for people to think TREASON has been committed could be a signifier of internal dissension commensurate with eventual internal conflict of arms. After all, we put traitors to DEATH, do we not? Would not civil war be a greater threat to the republic than a government mandate power?

As for your last point:

quote: Simply put, this gives the Government unlimited mandate power over the citizens of this country. I think you understand this and that the Constitution was against that, your problem is you don't see this as a bad thing.

I don't claim to possess the constitutional knowledge to contradict the Roberts decision and recognize that constitutional rights can be abridged when certain judicial tests are met - that being said, I wonder why a decision by the Supreme Court on matters of health care would be seen as a greater violation of the guarantees of the constitution by you and your cohort when Obama claims the power of Kings to draw up secret kill lists which include the names of American citizens.

So where are your constitutional priorities? A government desire to cover all its citizens w/ health care is a great threat than secret kill list drawn up by the President with no review?

Would you trust Michael Moore with the power to draw up a list of American citizens to kill?

Oh wait I forgot who I'm talking to: the guy who would put Justice Roberts at the top of his kill list!

Do you understand legal precedence? This isn't JUST about Health Care. Hello?

ACA isn't even about Health Care anyway. It's all about the redistribution of wealth on a massive scale. That's all socialized medicine does. But I digress.

quote: Would not civil war be a greater threat to the republic than a government mandate power?

If the right side wins, no. No it's not. An outright war with England is why we're here in the first place, after all.

However who's even talking about that? Calling 5 justices traitors is going to cause a civil war now?

You know it's really great that you just want to sit here and over-intellectualize this, but I'm the one who has to live with these decisions and face their consequences.

quote: I wonder why a decision by the Supreme Court on matters of health care would be seen as a greater violation of the guarantees of the constitution by you and your cohort when Obama claims the power of Kings to draw up secret kill lists which include the names of American citizens.

That's a pretty poor Red Herring you realize? You're presenting an either/or debate when none such existed. BOTH are obviously things to be against.

quote: Oh wait I forgot who I'm talking to: the guy who would put Justice Roberts at the top of his kill list!

Don't put words in my mouth. I said no such thing and you know it. I would never advocate someone be murdered.

I just might not shed any tears if it happened to certain individuals. That's a big difference. Plus I was obviously blowing off steam, get a grip.

quote: Go ahead and worry about fascism then...

I seem to recall Liberals talking about assassinating Bush, and even making movies about this happening while he was in office, and nobody had a problem with that. Hell it was downright "patriotic" then.